A 42-year-old man has taken centre stage in a high-profile trial at the High Court, accused of raping his wife in November 2020 during a tumultuous period marked by the COVID-19 pandemic. Both parties involved, being foreigners, are protected by a gag order which conceals their identities and other sensitive details.
Circumstances of the Incident
The couple, who had been living apart, saw their paths cross when the man attempted to deliver a gift on the morning of 8 November 2020. Despite the wife’s initial refusal, he appeared at her void deck, sparking a heated argument that escalated into violence, with the man allegedly slapping and kicking her.
Following the altercation, she reluctantly rode on his motorcycle to his residence after being persuaded to resolve their disagreement. Prosecutors assert that once at his home, the man locked the door and roller shutters to prevent her from escaping—this act, they argue, set the stage for the alleged rape.
Assault and Coercion Allegations
- The woman was reportedly shown a pornographic video, which the man claimed featured someone who looked like her.
- He allegedly assaulted her, leading to her injury—she chipped a tooth during the encounter.
- Prosecutors claim the man threatened her with a metal rod, creating an atmosphere of fear that invalidated any possible consent.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
The man is facing a total of nine charges, including two counts of aggravated rape, one for attempted aggravated rape, and several charges related to physical assault and intimidation. This trial is particularly significant as it marks the first marital rape case since Singapore repealed marital immunity for rape in January 2020.
According to the prosecution, consent cannot be claimed if it was given under threat—”the victim was labouring under fear of injury at the time of the acts,” stated Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh.
Awaiting Justice
The trial is expected to see evidence from a total of 38 witnesses, as the prosecution seeks to substantiate its case. Meanwhile, the man’s defence claims the sexual acts were consensual, leading to a complex legal battle over the interpretation of consent within the framework of an intimate relationship.
This case draws critical attention not only for its legal implications but also as a reflection of broader societal changes regarding consent and accountability in marital relationships.